explicit functions that are not candidates.
It's not always obvious that the reason a conversion was not possible is
because the function you wanted to call is 'explicit', so explicitly say
if that's the case.
It would be nice to rank the explicit candidates higher in the
diagnostic if an implicit conversion sequence exists for their
arguments, but unfortunately we can't determine that without potentially
triggering non-immediate-context errors that we're not permitted to
produce.
std::initializer_list<T> type. Instead, the list must contain a single element
and the type is deduced from that.
In Clang 3.7, we warned by default on all the cases that would change meaning
due to this change. In Clang 3.8, we will support only the new rules -- per
the request in N3922, this change is applied as a Defect Report against earlier
versions of the C++ standard.
This change is not entirely trivial, because for lambda init-captures we
previously did not track the difference between direct-list-initialization and
copy-list-initialization. The difference was not previously observable, because
the two forms of initialization always did the same thing (the elements of the
initializer list were always copy-initialized regardless of the initialization
style used for the init-capture).
llvm-svn: 252688
(or of a lambda init-capture, which is sort-of such a variable). The semantics
of such constructs will change when we implement N3922, so we intend to warn on
this in Clang 3.6 then change the semantics in Clang 3.7.
llvm-svn: 228792
the result of a cast-to-reference-type lifetime-extends the object to which the
reference inside the cast binds.
This requires us to look for subobject adjustments on both the inside and the
outside of the MaterializeTemporaryExpr when looking for a temporary to
lifetime-extend (which we also need for core issue 616, and possibly 1213).
llvm-svn: 184024
a FieldDecl from it, and propagate both into the closure type and the
LambdaExpr.
You can't do much useful with them yet -- you can't use them within the body
of the lambda, because we don't have a representation for "the this of the
lambda, not the this of the enclosing context". We also don't have support or a
representation for a nested capture of an init-capture yet, which was intended
to work despite not being allowed by the current standard wording.
llvm-svn: 181985
Richard Smith